What about the right to be intolerant of intolerance?

[Dante]

Furthermore: Is it intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance?


and, Should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant??

 

[Darkwind]

LOL....I gave up philosophy after Hobbs and Kant.....It gets way to technical.....

 

[Dante]

LOL....I gave up philosophy after Hobbs and Kant.....It gets way to technical.....

Is this the coexistence conception,or...?

 

[ClosedCaption]

psycho babble

 

[Dante]

psycho babble

imbecile speak (above moronic post)

 

[Sonny Clark]

What about the right to be intolerant of intolerance?

Lets try this first.

Define 'Intolerant" and "Intolerance". I find that most people don't even know or understand the word(s)

Definition: ( Dictionary.com ) ----
1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.
2. unable or unwilling to tolerate or endure

Does not denote understanding of the concept, but yeah..that is the definition.

So, when we say we tolerate something thing.........does that mean we agree with it?

No, it sure doesn't. We can tolerate something without agreeing with it or liking it.

And that is often what screws people up. They say, "You are intolerant, meaning that you don't tolerate X, whatever X is....

But to tolerate something does not mean I agree with it. So if I am intolerant, does that mean I won't tolerate it, and if so, what does not tolerating it entail? Rights violations? Violence? Murder?

If I am intolerant of intolerance, am I then actually in agreement with the specific issue? After all, we're talking about a double negative...

Many people are intolerant of my intolerance of the government. They have that right, just as I have the right to be intolerant of the government. They can't, or wont, accept my view because they say it's unpatriotic or anti-America. So, they are intolerant to my intolerance. And, they have every right to be. Not only do they disagree with me, but they can't tolerate my views and opinions. This can be said concerning anyone's strong dislike for something. I am intolerant to drug addicts and alcoholics. I can't stand being around them, listening to them, or even being in the same room with them. So, not only do I dislike them, I can't tolerate them either.

We could go on and on with tolerance and intolerance. I'm sure that many have issues that irk them to the point of being intolerant. If someone doesn't like intolerant people, or disagrees with intolerance for anything, then yes, they have an intolerance for intolerance. But, again, yes, we do have the right to be intolerant, or to be intolerant to intolerance.

 

[Darkwind]

LOL....I gave up philosophy after Hobbs and Kant.....It gets way to technical.....

Is this the coexistence conception,or...?

LOL...

Coexistence of the intolerants?

Sounds like a techno thriller....

 

[Asclepias]

Lets try this first.

Define 'Intolerant" and "Intolerance". I find that most people don't even know or understand the word(s)

Definition: ( Dictionary.com ) ----
1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.
2. unable or unwilling to tolerate or endure

Does not denote understanding of the concept, but yeah..that is the definition.

So, when we say we tolerate something thing.........does that mean we agree with it?

No, it sure doesn't. We can tolerate something without agreeing with it or liking it.

We can tolerate things and either agree in part, agree in full or disagree in part or disagree in full or not give two friggin' shits about the agreement. See?

But the key to being tolerant is that I disagree or not, but it means that I WILL NOT DO ANYTHING TO CHANGE WHAT I TOLERATE......

Anyone get that yet?

Thats not true. You can actively work towards changing something and tolerate its existence until the goal of changing it is reached.

 

[WelfareQueen]

What about the right to be intolerant of intolerance?

edit:
Toleration
First published Fri Feb 23, 2007; substantive revision Fri May 4, 2012
The term “toleration”—from the Latin tolerare: to put up with, countenance or suffer—generally refers to the conditional acceptance of or non-interference with beliefs, actions or practices that one considers to be wrong but still “tolerable,” such that they should not be prohibited or constrained. There are many contexts in which we speak of a person or an institution as being tolerant: parents tolerate certain behavior of their children, a friend tolerates the weaknesses of another, a monarch tolerates dissent, a church tolerates homosexuality, a state tolerates a minority religion, a society tolerates deviant behavior. Thus for any analysis of the motives and reasons for toleration, the relevant contexts need to be taken into account.

• 1. The Concept of Toleration and its Paradoxes
• 2. Four Conceptions of Toleration
• 3. The History of Toleration
• 4. Justifying Toleration
• Bibliography
• Academic Tools
• Other Internet Resources
• Related Entries
• 
  
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/

Sounds good to me.

But the thing is....most are blind to their own intolerance. For example: Many on the left decry what they perceive as "racism," yet are highly intolerant of those with sincere spiritual beliefs or differing political beliefs.

I think the nature of humanity is to be somewhat intolerant. If we all recognize that, maybe things get better. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Lets try this first.

Define 'Intolerant" and "Intolerance". I find that most people don't even know or understand the word(s)

Definition: ( Dictionary.com ) ----
1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.
2. unable or unwilling to tolerate or endure

Does not denote understanding of the concept, but yeah..that is the definition.

So, when we say we tolerate something thing.........does that mean we agree with it?

No, it sure doesn't. We can tolerate something without agreeing with it or liking it.

We can tolerate things and either agree in part, agree in full or disagree in part or disagree in full or not give two friggin' shits about the agreement. See?

But the key to being tolerant is that I disagree or not, but it means that I WILL NOT DO ANYTHING TO CHANGE WHAT I TOLERATE......

Anyone get that yet?

Sure, if one agrees with something or someone, they wouldn't want to change it or them. But, if they disagree with something or someone, yet tolerates them or it, they may want to make changes. Or, at least attempt to change.

 

[Darkwind]

Lets try this first.

Define 'Intolerant" and "Intolerance". I find that most people don't even know or understand the word(s)

Definition: ( Dictionary.com ) ----
1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.
2. unable or unwilling to tolerate or endure

Does not denote understanding of the concept, but yeah..that is the definition.

So, when we say we tolerate something thing.........does that mean we agree with it?

No, it sure doesn't. We can tolerate something without agreeing with it or liking it.

And that is often what screws people up. They say, "You are intolerant, meaning that you don't tolerate X, whatever X is....

But to tolerate something does not mean I agree with it. So if I am intolerant, does that mean I won't tolerate it, and if so, what does not tolerating it entail? Rights violations? Violence? Murder?

If I am intolerant of intolerance, am I then actually in agreement with the specific issue? After all, we're talking about a double negative...

Many people are intolerant of my intolerance of the government. They have that right, just as I have the right to be intolerant of the government. They can't, or wont, accept my view because they say it's unpatriotic or anti-America. So, they are intolerant to my intolerance. And, they have every right to be. Not only do they disagree with me, but they can't tolerate my views and opinions. This can be said concerning anyone's strong dislike for something. I am intolerant to drug addicts and alcoholics. I can't stand being around them, listening to them, or even being in the same room with them. So, not only do I dislike them, I can't tolerate them either.

We could go on and on with tolerance and intolerance. I'm sure that many have issues that irk them to the point of being intolerant. If someone doesn't like intolerant people, or disagrees with intolerance for anything, then yes, they have an intolerance for intolerance. But, again, yes, we do have the right to be intolerant, or to be intolerant to intolerance.

The problem is, the only thing I'm intolerant of is cowardice and harming children. I WILL act in those cases, not talk. Particularly of harming chilrend. I don't even give warning.

But its absolutely nonsensical to say I am intolerant of intolerance. As I said, its like trying to prove a double negative.

A persons intolerance with Me won't be met with intolerance, but with retaliation.

 

[Dante]

And that is often what screws people up. They say, "You are intolerant, meaning that you don't tolerate X, whatever X is....

But to tolerate something does not mean I agree with it. So if I am intolerant, does that mean I won't tolerate it, and if so, what does not tolerating it entail? Rights violations? Violence? Murder?

If I am intolerant of intolerance, am I then actually in agreement with the specific issue? After all, we're talking about a double negative...

I'm with you, bro.

The right to be intolerant of intolerance is a non-sense statement. First of all, how is it a right?
Second of all, from a logical standpoint it's self-negating.

cute little quote, but bear with me...

The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
― Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies ​

The Open Society and Its Enemies Quotes by Karl Popper

 

[Dante]

The right to be intolerant of intolerance is a non-sense statement. First of all, how is it a right?
Second of all, from a logical standpoint it's self-negating.

one moment please...

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
― Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies
​

The Open Society and Its Enemies Quotes by Karl Popper

 

[Asclepias]

And that is often what screws people up. They say, "You are intolerant, meaning that you don't tolerate X, whatever X is....

But to tolerate something does not mean I agree with it. So if I am intolerant, does that mean I won't tolerate it, and if so, what does not tolerating it entail? Rights violations? Violence? Murder?

If I am intolerant of intolerance, am I then actually in agreement with the specific issue? After all, we're talking about a double negative...

I'm with you, bro.

The right to be intolerant of intolerance is a non-sense statement. First of all, how is it a right?
Second of all, from a logical standpoint it's self-negating.

cute little quote, but bear with me...

The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
― Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies ​

The Open Society and Its Enemies Quotes by Karl Popper

Thats my thought on the matter. If you tolerate intolerance pretty soon no one will be tolerant of differences.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Definition: ( Dictionary.com ) ----
1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.
2. unable or unwilling to tolerate or endure

Does not denote understanding of the concept, but yeah..that is the definition.

So, when we say we tolerate something thing.........does that mean we agree with it?

No, it sure doesn't. We can tolerate something without agreeing with it or liking it.

And that is often what screws people up. They say, "You are intolerant, meaning that you don't tolerate X, whatever X is....

But to tolerate something does not mean I agree with it. So if I am intolerant, does that mean I won't tolerate it, and if so, what does not tolerating it entail? Rights violations? Violence? Murder?

If I am intolerant of intolerance, am I then actually in agreement with the specific issue? After all, we're talking about a double negative...

Many people are intolerant of my intolerance of the government. They have that right, just as I have the right to be intolerant of the government. They can't, or wont, accept my view because they say it's unpatriotic or anti-America. So, they are intolerant to my intolerance. And, they have every right to be. Not only do they disagree with me, but they can't tolerate my views and opinions. This can be said concerning anyone's strong dislike for something. I am intolerant to drug addicts and alcoholics. I can't stand being around them, listening to them, or even being in the same room with them. So, not only do I dislike them, I can't tolerate them either.

We could go on and on with tolerance and intolerance. I'm sure that many have issues that irk them to the point of being intolerant. If someone doesn't like intolerant people, or disagrees with intolerance for anything, then yes, they have an intolerance for intolerance. But, again, yes, we do have the right to be intolerant, or to be intolerant to intolerance.

The problem is, the only thing I'm intolerant of is cowardice and harming children. I WILL act in those cases, not talk. Particularly of harming chilrend. I don't even give warning.

But its absolutely nonsensical to say I am intolerant of intolerance. As I said, its like trying to prove a double negative.

A persons intolerance with Me won't be met with intolerance, but with retaliation.

It's all based on individuality, understanding, and being able to co-exist. What's the normal threshold of intolerance? Or, is there are normal? Do we become so intolerant that we hide in caves? As a people, and as a nation, we have to find ways to co-exist. We don't have to agree, nor accept what irks us, but we do have to find ways to avoid unnecessary conflict on the basis of mere intolerance alone. Being tolerant, with few exceptions, is characteristic of being mature and civil. We don't arm ourselves and hit the streets looking for that which we have an intolerance for. We tolerate intolerance by avoiding conflict and association with intolerance.

 

[Dante]

What about the right to be intolerant of intolerance?

edit:
Toleration
First published Fri Feb 23, 2007; substantive revision Fri May 4, 2012
The term “toleration”—from the Latin tolerare: to put up with, countenance or suffer—generally refers to the conditional acceptance of or non-interference with beliefs, actions or practices that one considers to be wrong but still “tolerable,” such that they should not be prohibited or constrained. There are many contexts in which we speak of a person or an institution as being tolerant: parents tolerate certain behavior of their children, a friend tolerates the weaknesses of another, a monarch tolerates dissent, a church tolerates homosexuality, a state tolerates a minority religion, a society tolerates deviant behavior. Thus for any analysis of the motives and reasons for toleration, the relevant contexts need to be taken into account.

• 1. The Concept of Toleration and its Paradoxes
• 2. Four Conceptions of Toleration
• 3. The History of Toleration
• 4. Justifying Toleration
• Bibliography
• Academic Tools
• Other Internet Resources
• Related Entries
• 
  
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/toleration/

Sounds good to me.

But the thing is....most are blind to their own intolerance. For example: Many on the left decry what they perceive as "racism," yet are highly intolerant of those with sincere spiritual beliefs or differing political beliefs.

I think the nature of humanity is to be somewhat intolerant. If we all recognize that, maybe things get better. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

I think some, not most pf those who are intolerant of others with strong religious beliefs, is that strong religious beliefs can lead to an intolerance that is intolerable to others.

 

[Treeshepherd]

We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law

Preaching? Are you getting close to the part where you disparage organized religion as intolerant?

edit: never mind, just saw your last post.

 

[Dante]

We tolerate intolerance by avoiding conflict and association with intolerance.

And that usually leads to a societal disaster of some kind

 

[Sonny Clark]

We tolerate intolerance by avoiding conflict and association with intolerance.

And that usually leads to a societal disaster of some kind

For example?

 

[Dante]

We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law

Preaching? Are you getting close to the part where you disparage organized religion as intolerant?

It is what it is, but I accept the intolerance that comes with others religious beliefs as long as it is withing certain bounds. Is it morally and ethically defensible? Is it to the benefit of all? Does it respect the rights of others?

Organized religion needs to defend itself. when it is accused of being morally and ethically challenged it cannot hide behind the curtain of beliefs